About Lens Clones

[Cadmium]

EDITOR'S NOTE:

The topic of a lens "clone" has been controversial on UVP. Most UVP members feel that there is no such thing as a lens "clone". I agree.

 

The Ebay seller Igoriginal has been marketing an unlabeled, home made, UV-capable lens as a Kyoei Kuribayashi (Ebay Clone). UVP members object to this designation with good reason because the Igoriginal lens is not like a Kyoei 35/3.5 lens except for being a 35/3.5.

 

Here is a discussion about lens clones which originally occured in the middle of another topic about making UV photos with a Sigma Quattro. The lens clone discussion was split off and placed here to give it prominence and also to avoid interrupting the Sigma Quattro photographic topic. The Sigma Quattro photos were made with the unlabeled Ebay Igoriginal lens and that lens is referred to in the following discussion.

 

In Post #17 you will find an excellent discussion of the construction of 35 mm f/3.5 preset lenses by Oleksandr Holachov.

---

 

A 'clone' is not a clone unless it is known what the clone is. How can a lens be a clone, when it is kept a secret what the lens actually is? Have you ever seen a lens that has no brand name written on it?

Who says it is a clone, and why doesn't it have a brand name on it?

Sorry, I just have to say that all sounds rather wrong to me.

 

A lens may look like another lens, it may be very similar in design, and construction, but that is not what makes a lens a 'clone'.

What makes a 'clone' is testing it, comparing it to the lens you think it is a clone of, in the case of a UV friendly lens, testing the spectral transmission, and also focal shift, sharpness.

This really needs to be done side by side with the lens that you think it is a clone of, comparing the transmission.

Once again, a brand name.

I find no lens in all of my lenses that has no brand name. Perhaps your lens has had the brand name removed.

[GaryR]

I'm just going by the sellers' description, which is "... variant/clone (a T-mount version, unmarked and custom-labeled) of the Kyoei Kuribayashi lens...". I'm sure you can easily find the listing. Semantics aside, all I'm concerned with is producing a UV image, which this lens apparently seems to do.

[Cadmium]

I understand. I am aware of the listing, I have read it.

It sounds like you are saying it has no brand name on it, that it has been removed.

Many lenses will transmit UV, better or worse, and many will produce a UV image.

To call something a 'clone' of a Kuribayashi / Kyoei, with no proof, no verification, no comparison, and removal of the brand name is something I don't trust at all.

To be a clone, to use that term, to use those names brand names, Kuri and Kyoei, then lens needs to be verified, and it should have a brand name of its own that has no been removed.

[GaryR]

It looks exactly like the one pictured in the listing, with a seller applied sticker on the outside ring. My copy looks clear and clean, with no identifying brand name. When I'm more organized, I'll have to compare this mystery lens with my normal and El-Nikkor lenses.

[Alex H]

Editor's Note: The bolding is mine. It is important to emphasize the point that there is no clone of a Kyoei/Kuribayashi 35/3.5 lens.

---

 

I have been saying this many times already, and start to feel like Klaus used to...

 

There is no such thing as T-mount clone of Kyoei/Kuribayashi lens. Original Kyoei lenses were made with interchangeable mount that was not T-mount at all, but a unique solution. The same solution was applied to their 80mm 105mm and 135mm lenses, and may be others. But the mount was not interchangeable between the lenses of different focal length.

 

Mechanical construction of original Kyoei/Kuribayashi lenses was also unique – front part of the lens with optics and aperture can be easily unscrewed from the focusing helicoid. T-mount lenses do not have it. They have completely different mechanical construction (simpler) and no one knows for sure who manufactured them. Thus, we can not assume that their optics is identical to that of real Kyoei/Kuribayashi lens, no matter how similar individual lens elements are and the optical construction in general.

 

It was shows many times that seemingly identical lenses from the same series made by the same manufacturer can have different optical properties in UV (Focotar-2 100mm anyone?). Even "real" Kyoei/Kuribayashi clones (and I have a collection of those) have different coating applied. Minor changes in glass, coating or cement, which have no obvious affect on visible light, can have tremendous impact on lens transmission in UV. So how can one state that not so similar lenses made by most likely different manufacturers can be identical in their optical properties?

[Cadmium]

I am the person that discovered the Kuribayashi 35mm f/3.5 lens for UV. Saying that, I fully expect a few to dispute that, argue it, tell me I am wrong, but I know it is true, and I remember when I first showed that on the old Nikongear, like back in 2012 or some such year.

Editor's Note: Cadmium, nobody disputes this. Rest easy.

 

 

https://www.fotozone...ribayashi-35mm/

https://www.fotozone...hi-3535mm-lens/

 

 

A few people on Nikongear recognized how well the Kuri worked for UV, and also had minimal focal shift compared to other such lenses.

I don't care what anyone says, I discovered that lens, and a whole lot of other 'clones' came out of that discovery by a lot of other people.

Thus the term Kuri and Clone used in the same breath.

So I kind of take it personal when someone comes along on eBay with some mystery lens that they have removed the brand name off of, relabeled with "Kuribayashi 35mm Clone", and are telling people it works like a Kuri.

To me, that is some illegal or unethical thing to do. I know it happens all the time, in many ways and forms, and China copies things too and sells them as real...

but it is obvious here what this is about.

It is about some branded lens, that looks like a Kuri, and may work at least somewhat like a Kuri, and it comes with cheap China filters as well, all in a package that adds up to $100, and you don't know the actual lens,

so you can't go look for one of those to see if you can get one for less.

But even more-so, there is no comparison, no Sparticle, no Spectrometer comparison of the mystery clone and the real live Kuri.

 

So pardon me if I take this mystery clone a little personal. But using all those words in the same listing tittle, "Clone and Kuribayashi" with the real brand name removed... China doesn't strand a candle to that.

 

Gary, please don't take this personal, I like your tests, they show UV pattern and transmission, I just have issues with the eBay clone, and I always will until it is revealed or proven.

It is an unethical use of the words clone and Kuri, if you want to say something is a clone, then you need to say what it is, the brand name.

[GaryR]

Nope, I don't take it personal. I hear where you're coming from, and I don't defend or condone anything anything related to this lens. If I'm able to get something that works better, I'll use that, but for now I have to name the lens 'something', if I post an image. I realize that UV photography requires highly specialized (expensive) gear, but that shouldn't deter anyone from trying budget-friendly methods that produce moderate results...at any rate that's my journey.

 

Why not contact igoriginal directly, with your issues ?

[Andrea B.]

EDITOR'S NOTE:

Gary, you walked into the middle of a controversy through absolutely no fault of your own!! I want please for you not to take this personally.

 

First, please know that Bjørn Birna and I as owner/admins of UVP fully support and encourage the search for low cost gear to use for reflected UV photography. We know that not everyone can afford a UV-Nikkor or a BaaderU. We try to list everything we know about low cost UV lenses, cameras and filters in the Stickies in the Reference section. B)

 

Second, here is a bit of UV-lens history.

 

When I started out in UV about 12 years ago, there was not a lot of knowledge about non-dedicated UV-capable lenses. If you wanted to try UV photography, then you had to save up and buy a UV-Nikkor 105/4.5. And the only UV-Pass filter most of us knew about was the BaaderU. Gradually, as more people became interested in this unusual little corner of photography, "ordinary" lenses were tested and found to be UV-capable.

 

Klaus Schmitt was one of the first to test a wide array of "ordinary" lenses for UV photography capability. Oleksandr Holachov and Enrico Savazzi were also amongst the leaders in testing lenses for UV photography capability. Eventually it became known that the group of older, uncoated, simply constructed, 35mm f/3.5 lenses contained many potential candidates for use in UV photography. And Steve Smeed discovered that the Kyoei/Kurabashyi 35/3.5 was one of the best from that group.

 

[Now I just know that I've left someone out there in my little UV-lens history. So if I have, then simply let me know, I will fix it, and don't take it personally. I only have so many available memory cells during any post.]

 

Now Ebay and Igoriginal enter into the story. Igor Butorsky (igoriginal) was interested in UV lenses and had amassed (we hear) quite a large collection. Iggy figured out somewhere along the way that he could make inexpensive UV-capable lenses by putting together this-that-and-the-other parts of various other lenses. It may be that Iggy also orders some mounts or elements from an optical supplier to use in his lenses, but we don't know anything about how these lenses are constructed. Anyway, Iggy has been selling these wide-angle UV-capable constructions on his Ebay site. One has to admire his entrepreneurial spirit. However, Igor tends to Over-Market his creations. These lenses should NOT be called "Kyoei Kuribyashi (Ebay Clone)". There are no "clones" in the lens world. Igor's lenses are not at all like Kyoei/Kuri lenses. All that the Igoriginal's Ebay customer needs to know is that Igoriginal inexpensive lenses work for UV. End of that discussion. Igor, pay attention please !!!!!!

---

 

Now, Alex, Steve and anyone else interested, let us please all be helpful and find a name for Gary's lens, yes?

 

Gary bought this lens in good faith, has found it works in UV and is enjoying using it. But what is he going to call this lens when he posts here? I'm thinking that perhaps it should simply be the Igoriginal 35/3.5 ??. That pretty much explains it all. And if anyone asks, Gary can explain that the Igoriginal 35/3.5 is constructed by Igor Butorsky. Gary, please let me know what you think about this suggestion.

 

Why Igor doesn't sell his lenses branded like that, I don't know? Igor if you are reading, change your blasted Ebay Ads so they are not misleading. People are not buying these lenses because they are a supposed "clone". People buy these lenses because they are inexpensive.

 

I've had my say and I do not wish to see this further disucssed in Gary's thread. However, if either Cadmium or Alex wants to make a separate topic about misleading Ebay marketing of these Igoriginal lenses, then I fully support that. Please do !!! What I wrote here and what you two might write in a separate post might get Igor's attention. :D

[GaryR]

Thanks Andrea! All helpful information. Igoriginal 35/3.5 sounds good to me. :P

[Cadmium]

2012 Links.

https://www.fotozone...ribayashi-35mm/

 

https://www.fotozone...hi-3535mm-lens/

 

But this is not about me, it is about the idea of removing lens branding, and then selling them under the Kuribayashi Clone 'brand'.

Modifying a lens, in order to obscure the true identity of the lens from everyone, thereby concealing any previous testing or comparison and lower available prices,

and inferring that it works the same as a Kuri, with no proof.

That is a bad practice in my opinion.

[dabateman]

Wow looks like this thread took an interesting turn.

 

@Cadmium, I had no idea you discovered the Kuri. That is awesome. It also explained the questions you asked me when I first talked about the igoriginal 35mm.

I am with you on your comments, he did modify it as the coatings seem to be stripped, a seal was added and I am not sure if he glued or over tightened the 46 to 52mm step up ring on the front. The only way for me to remove would be to cut slits in it and try to leverage it off. But I think I will wait on it as it is one of my better len performers.

 

The igoriginal discovered 25mm f1.5 c-mount Wollensak velostigmat is not that great in my hands. Though I do think I got a mint copy. Its the original, with the copper front hood as described, but mine came with original metal cushion box, rear screw in cap and original daylight filter. Who keeps that stuff from the 1940s? So any coatings are probably still there and that may be why its the slowest of what I am calling my best Uv lenses.

 

Has anyone reported on the Tamron adaptall 24mm f2.5 lens. That seems to work great for me for uv. I bought it new in 2010, so coatings have not been stripped. I don't have a sparticle or spectrometer (yet) so can't provide filter data. However it gives me equal or better exposure values than the igoriginal 35mm f3.5. This still shocks me as it has 10 elements. The Tamron adaptall 28mm f2.5 that I also own and Adaptall 90mm f2.8 are both horrible for uv. I have not yet fully tested the adaptall 500mm f8 len. But I have low hopes for that mirror, I know special coatings have been used on it as its surprising good as a telephoto. I still have to uv test my telephoto lenses. I may have one that's good.

 

Editor's Interruption: David, you might want to copy/paste the following comment back to Gary's original thread. I wanted to be sure to include your clone comments here in this new thread.

 

Back to GaryR work. Those hand held shots are amazing. I seem to need the Em1 to get steady hand held shoots like that now at 1/8 shutter speed. My outside uv levels have been LESS than with my 405nm black light bulb due to all the rain and humidity in the DC area. Uv exposure outside as taken a big hit during our bloom period. But I think your settings are about the same as what I may see with the SD14. Thats great, the Sd15 and Sd1 really had low uv capture capabilities. This more likely due to an extra metal top layer added to improve high ISO settings.

 

So now you have me interested in the SDQ this time. But first I think I will rent it. The used prices still haven't hit my magic $400 and under number where I buy cameras. Only one to break that rule is my Nikon Df. But thats special and I still got it cheap.

 

I tested my full spectrum E510, off the self Em1 and SD14 yesterday. I see almost equal exposure values for E510 and Em1, the E510 pulls away at just one stop advantage at lower uv levels with zwb1. The SD14 has a 3 stop advantage using the Baader venus filter and a Six stop advantage using my Zwb1 filter. My Zwb1 does not leak into visible, I got a lucky one. Very little light from my 405nm black light is visible and you see nothing through a 2A filter.

[OlDoinyo]

How new is your Tamron? Is the bandpass better than that of the 21/4.5? Have you done pinhole bandpass tests on any of your lenses?

[Cadmium]

Just so everyone knows, I didn't start this topic, this stuff was moved here from another topic.

[Andrea B.]

It is rather clear from the Editor's Note in the first post that I, the Editor, have split the original topic.

And I do explain why. :)

We do split topics sometimes to make sure important topics are separate and well seen. And also we split topics sometimes to make sure the original tooic does not veer too much off course. Many of our topics wander, but if they wander too far then splitting is appropriate.

[Cadmium]

UV shots using Kuri's.

 

 

[Andrea B.]

Alex's Notes on 35mm f/3.5 UV-capable Lenses originally seen in the topic:

 

My little collection of 35/3.5 presets

by Oleksandr Holachov

 

These are the seven "names" I have collected over the last year [2014]. These lenses seem to me to be very similar to a Kyoei/Kuribayashi/Petri 35/3.5 lens in optical and mechanical construction, except for having:

1. black and somewhat wider aperture ring instead unpainted narrower one, and
   
2. blue coating in two specimens.
   

Hope it is of any use to the UVP community.

 

Seven 35 mm f/3.5 Lenses

 

 

There is something really fishy about these particular lenses in the way they were branded. All the ones in the preceding picture have names used by re-sellers in different countries:

• Ina
  
• Mayfair Crystar
  
• RolMax
  
• Seastal-Ojasi
  
• Soligor
  
• Sonnagar
  
• W.Otra
  

A few of these names I have also seen on T-mount 35/3.5 presets of different shape and origin. Two other re-seller names to add to the list are:

• Votar
  
• W. Taika Terragon
  

However, I have also seen identical lenses labelled with:

• Miranda
  
• Super Yashinon-R
  
• Yashinon-R
  

The only 35/3.5 presets with Vivitar branding that I have seen are T-mount, but of course that does not mean anything. Few of the names in my collection are from European resellers. Seastal-Ojasi is thought to be Swedsih, but I have not seen any proof. Mayfair was a British lens importer. I have no idea about the others.

 

In cases like this, I think the name on the lens is the one that can confuse people the most. It's mechanical construction that I always check.

 

I was never interested in gathering data on the T-mount preset 35mm F/3.5 lenses, they did not attract my attention. But the Kyoei/Kuribayashi lenses are interesting to me not only due to their useful UV response, but also by the way they are built.

 

First of all, their mounts are in fact interchangeable, but only between the lenses of the same focal length (and aperture). The picture below will show two rebranded Kuri 35mm f/3.5 lenses, one with Exakta mount and one with M42. The lens mount is held by three screws located on the outer ribbed sides of it. There is a groove around the bottom part of the barrel of the lens, where these screws go. Moreover, on the bottom of this groove there are three unthreaded holes, where tips of the screws fit when completely recessed. They ensure the correct position of the adapter, so that the lens markings are facing the top when the camera is used.

 

I have seen a similar mount system in 80mm and 105mm lenses from the same manufacturer. But they are not interchangeable between 35mm, 80mm and 105mm lenses -- only between the lenses of the same focal length. I think some German made lenses used the same approach even after the T-moun system was introduced in Japan. Unfortunately, I have only seen 35mm Kyoei/Kuribayashi rebranded lenses of this type (not T-mount versions) fitted with M42 and Exakta mounts, and my 80mm lens came with a Miranda M44 mount.

 

Two Rebranded Kuribayashi 35mm f/3.5 Lenses with Mount Removed

 

The other peculiar thing with these lenses (35mm, 80mm, 105mm, 135mm and others) is that the entire optical assembly of the lens (the optical block), including all optical elements and aperture mechanism can be unscrewed from the other part of the lens that includes the focusing helicoid and lens mount. It is very helpful when one gets a lens with a completely frozen focusing, like I did. I tried to re-lubricate the focusing mechanism but failed miserably (and I have succesfully re-lubricated over a dozen lenses made by Zeiss, Minolta, Tamron, Meyer-Optik etc). Now, having some lenses with bad focusing but clean optics, and few with bad optics and fully functional focusing, I can "make" fully operational lens.

 

The bottom part of the lens barrel is composed of several circular parts, two of which you can see on the pictures: the outer painted black and the inner unpainted that looks like brass. They are parts of the focusing mechanism (do not ask me how it works as I am not going to take apart these lenses any more), and have nothing to do with the lens mount itself.

 

Two 35mm f/3.5 Lenses with Optical Blocks Removed

 

The optical block can also be retrofitted with its own mount and fitted to the longer focusing helicoid. I have the 35mm lens head mounted on the 25-55mm focusing helicoid. The camera adapter had a Baader-U2 mounted inside. This offers a very compact package with excellent close-focusing capability (and infinity) for UV-only imaging.

 

Sony Nex-6, Lens Mount, Helicoid and Lens Optical Block

 

Sony Nex-6 with Reconstructed Lens

[Cadmium]

Just wondering what this means:

"Editor's Note: The bolding is mine. It is important to emphasize the point that there is no clone of a Kyoei/Kuribayashi 35/3.5 lens."

[Andrea B.]

When an Editor writes that it means that the Editor has added the bolding, not the original writer.

[Cadmium]

Mechanical construction of original Kyoei/Kuribayashi lenses was also unique – front part of the lens with optics and aperture can be easily unscrewed from the focusing helicoid.

 

Unrelated or minor point/question, perhaps, but what I think of as 'the front part of the lens that screws out' does not have the aperture, the aperture remains in the back part of the lens,

and also of course there is one element at the very rear of the back part of the lens that screws out of the back of that.

 

 

 

[Cadmium]

When an Editor writes that it means that the Editor has added the bolding, not the original writer.

 

This part:

"there is no clone of a Kyoei/Kuribayashi 35/3.5 lens"

[Alex H]

Steve, now you are just playing with words. This is what I wrote exactly: "front part of the lens with optics and aperture can be easily unscrewed from the focusing helicoid". I also used the term "optical block". What is the point of this argument about what is "front" and what is "not front"?

[Cadmium]

Two Rebranded Kuribayashi 35mm f/3.5 Lenses with Mount Removed

Neither of these lenses look like actual Kuribayashi 35mm lenses, for one things, they don't have the alternating silver/black focus ring, and second, all Kuribayashi 35mm lenses were M42.

So these look more like Kyoei, who of course made the Kuribayashi lenses for Petri.

Again, minor point, perhaps, just saying.

[Cadmium]

Steve, now you are just playing with words. This is what I wrote exactly: "front part of the lens with optics and aperture can be easily unscrewed from the focusing helicoid". I also used the term "optical block". What is the point of this argument about what is "front" and what is "not front"?

 

I was not playing with words. I thought you were saying that the aperture came unscrewed with the front part of the lens. That is what you said.

Just clarifying that the aperture doesn't come unscrewed along with the front optics.

That is what you said. I was not playing with anything at all.

 

"front part of the lens with optics and aperture can be easily unscrewed from the focusing helicoid"

 

That reads as meaning that the front optics and aperture are grouped together (optics and aperture) and unscrew from the back part of the lens (focusing helicoid).

 

Here, how's this sound:

"front part of the lens with optics (optical block) can be easily unscrewed from the back part of the lens which contains the aperture and focusing helicoid"

 

Not playing with words, just rearranging the words so that the aperture stays in the back part of the lens with the helicoid.

[dabateman]

@OlDoinyo,

I don't have and never have used the Tamron 21 f4.5, so can not comment.

Also excused my ignorance, but what is a pinhole bandpass test?

 

I don't really like the sparticle test, as to be sure you have good filters to test with you really have to spend a lot of money.

Being a Scientist and more and more bothered by not knowing the true spectral characteristics of my filters and lenses. I do see my self buying a spectrometer. However, these are currently cost prohibitive. There are cheap usb models and I could fiddle with grattings, but I don't have the time anymore.

I am slowly building a gradient and prism test. But calibration may be tricky. I purchased the cheap 1000 lines/mm grading mentioned on this forum. Also got an ok quartz prism from Amazon. So may make something useful one day.

 

[Alex H]

OK, I will rewrite for those who are very particular about the definition of "front" and "back":

 

The entire optical assembly of the lens, including all optical elements and aperture mechanism can be unscrewed from the part of the lens that includes focusing helicoid and lens mount.

 

Is this clear enough for you Steve? Sometimes I wonder why should I waste my time trying to help people here.